What causes this?

[neutrino]

Gold saums are rivulatus according to current classifications. In fact, the real debate among experts wasn't which is the 'true green terror', a hobby name that doesn't carry much weight with biologists. The real debate was which is the 'true rivulatus', which for now include gold saum and non-stalsbergi white saum green terrors.

As far as all this 'true' or 'original' vs. 'false' green terror talk you can find on forums, if you want to cut through all the confusion and opinions of non-experts on the subject, here's an article on the subject by biology professor and cichlid expert and writer Wayne Leibel.

As far as the photo on the label, I don't put much stock in food marketing labels as telling you anything real about what a food does or doesn't do for the fish.

 

[neutrino]

...Warming up to the subject... You might note comments in the article linked above regarding a 1982 article by a German writer, article named "The Green Terror-- That Isn't!"

The fish that was similar but NOT what he considered the 'true' green terror at the time was: A. stalsbergi, the fish you'll see so many insist is the 'original' or 'true' green terror. The fish he considered to be the real or original green terror? What we now know as A. rivulatus. Basically the opposite of what a lot of forum posters are now saying.

 

[thrillbillie12]

Gold saums are rivulatus according to current classifications. In fact, the real debate among experts wasn't which is the 'true green terror', a hobby name that doesn't carry much weight with biologists. The real debate was which is the 'true rivulatus', which for now include gold saum and non-stalsbergi white saum green terrors.

As far as all this 'true' or 'original' vs. 'false' green terror talk you can find on forums, if you want to cut through all the confusion and opinions of non-experts on the subject, here's an article on the subject by biology professor and cichlid expert and writer Wayne Leibel.

As far as the photo on the label, I don't put much stock in food marketing labels as telling you anything real about what a food does or doesn't do for the fish.

I'm not trying to discuss the difference between the two species of fish. I'm just trying to figure out if the color on the head is even possible. I know the first few post called it out to be Photoshoped or just the right lighting. But if you do you simple Google search on either green terror or gold saum, you get many pictures of fish with a yellowish orange color right behind their eyes. The picture I posted of the fish in my own tank shows this as well if you look close enough. It's hard to get it in a picture, but I can see it when look at him. My question is, is there anything you can do to bring this color out even more?

Sent from my LG-LS980 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[justarn]

lol, the jd above is an electric green!-0

 

[justarn]

 

[Adamrhh]

It's just photo shopped orange to make the package pop. No harm

 

[neutrino]

I'm not trying to discuss the difference between the two species of fish. I'm just trying to figure out if the color on the head is even possible. I know the first few post called it out to be Photoshoped or just the right lighting. But if you do you simple Google search on either green terror or gold saum, you get many pictures of fish with a yellowish orange color right behind their eyes. The picture I posted of the fish in my own tank shows this as well if you look close enough. It's hard to get it in a picture, but I can see it when look at him. My question is, is there anything you can do to bring this color out even more?

Sent from my LG-LS980 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

I understand. Wasn't trying to take the thread in a new direction but made a simple response to a post above that said gold saums are 'related' to rivulatus-- at least for now they are rivulatus. Added the link, etc. to be informational and avoid the common debate I see on all of that. Sorry if it seemed I was 'going off' on the subject.

I've had a lot of gold saums and know what you're saying that they can have some gold in the head, etc., but as I mentioned above food label photos often show exaggerated colors to make their food seem better and you can't always take them as realistic. In my work I've done a fair bit of image editing and all it takes is a minor tweak of editing software settings or a tweak to camera settings to saturate colors or bring out colors you don't really see with the naked eye. If you know what to look for it's pretty obvious that it's been done on some fish food packaging-- or in some tank shots. It can also be affected with the package printing, so it might be more obvious on some package/printing runs than others of the same product.

I'm not saying you can't get any gold/orange in their head, only that it's exaggerated in some of the photos you see and not necessarily realistic for the fish. As far as the real colors in the real fish, from what I've seen it's primarily due to variation in different breeding strains and also some variation in individuals, a lot like the variation in how wide or narrow the gold edges are or whether the edges are more gold or more orange/red.

There may or may not be something you can do to naturally enhance this color. The basics would be the same for all fish color, keep your water really clean and feed a quality diet with natural (not synthetic) 'color enhancing nutrients', which is just another way of saying pigmented nutrients like astaxanthin, xeaxanthin, and others that are often also antioxidant and good for fish health.

I've had years of breeding experience and done some careful food testing, and I found some foods are definitely better than others for bringing out natural colors (differences between products may be very subtle to pretty significant). But there's also simple individual differences, even within the same spawn, some species with more variation than others. Often, in the same spawn you'll get an average fish for the spawn, but also a few extra flashy individuals. Certain foods can bring out their natural color potential. (I'm avoiding specifics so I don't get accused of turning this into a food debate.) You could take the route of trying to artificially enhance color with hormones and synthetic pigments, but you potentially affect their health imo and I wouldn't go that route. For me it's about making the most of their natural potential with good health, good water, and good nutrition and then the fish will be what they're supposed to be.

 

[thrillbillie12]

I understand. Wasn't trying to take the thread in a new direction but made a simple response to a post above that said gold saums are 'related' to rivulatus-- at least for now they are rivulatus. Added the link, etc. to be informational and avoid the common debate I see on all of that. Sorry if it seemed I was 'going off' on the subject.

I've had a lot of gold saums and know what you're saying that they can have some gold in the head, etc., but as I mentioned above food label photos often show exaggerated colors to make their food seem better and you can't always take them as realistic. In my work I've done a fair bit of image editing and all it takes is a minor tweak of editing software settings or a tweak to camera settings to saturate colors or bring out colors you don't really see with the naked eye. If you know what to look for it's pretty obvious that it's been done on some fish food packaging-- or in some tank shots. It can also be affected with the package printing, so it might be more obvious on some package/printing runs than others of the same product.

I'm not saying you can't get any gold/orange in their head, only that it's exaggerated in some of the photos you see and not necessarily realistic for the fish. As far as the real colors in the real fish, from what I've seen it's primarily due to variation in different breeding strains and also some variation in individuals, a lot like the variation in how wide or narrow the gold edges are or whether the edges are more gold or more orange/red.

There may or may not be something you can do to naturally enhance this color. The basics would be the same for all fish color, keep your water really clean and feed a quality diet with natural (not synthetic) 'color enhancing nutrients', which is just another way of saying pigmented nutrients like astaxanthin, xeaxanthin, and others that are often also antioxidant and good for fish health.

I've had years of breeding experience and done some careful food testing, and I found some foods are definitely better than others for bringing out natural colors (differences between products may be very subtle to pretty significant). But there's also simple individual differences, even within the same spawn, some species with more variation than others. Often, in the same spawn you'll get an average fish for the spawn, but also a few extra flashy individuals. Certain foods can bring out their natural color potential. (I'm avoiding specifics so I don't get accused of turning this into a food debate.) You could take the route of trying to artificially enhance color with hormones and synthetic pigments, but you potentially affect their health imo and I wouldn't go that route. For me it's about making the most of their natural potential with good health, good water, and good nutrition and then the fish will be what they're supposed to be.

You just answered every question I had. Thank you very much for that response.
And know you aren't going off subject. I read through the link you provided. I learned a few things that I didn't know.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[gamerpond1]

Gold saums are rivulatus according to current classifications. In fact, the real debate among experts wasn't which is the 'true green terror', a hobby name that doesn't carry much weight with biologists. The real debate was which is the 'true rivulatus', which for now include gold saum and non-stalsbergi white saum green terrors.

As far as all this 'true' or 'original' vs. 'false' green terror talk you can find on forums, if you want to cut through all the confusion and opinions of non-experts on the subject, here's an article on the subject by biology professor and cichlid expert and writer Wayne Leibel.

As far as the photo on the label, I don't put much stock in food marketing labels as telling you anything real about what a food does or doesn't do for the fish.

Ok now you have me curious to what your talking about because in my cichlid pocket professional the gold saum is a sp. and the green terror which is rivulatus has no gold tipped fins but green to white tips

Gold saum false green terror http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=502

Silver saum true green terror http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2437

Rivulatus false green terror http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2435

Sent from my SM-T210R using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[neutrino]

Ok now you have me curious to what your talking about because in my cichlid pocket professional the gold saum is a sp. and the green terror which is rivulatus has no gold tipped fins but green to white tips

Gold saum false green terror http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=502

Silver saum true green terror http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2437

Rivulatus false green terror http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2435

Sent from my SM-T210R using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

That's exactly why I referred to the Wayne Leibel article rather than explain it myself. That way I don't have to argue and no one has to take my word for it, you can simply read the history written by a biology professor who's a well known cichlid expert (especially SA cichlids) with numerous cichlid publishing credits. The confusion isn't only the fault of hobbyists, as you see in the article it's taken time for the experts themselves to sort it out, and until they did there was different opinions even among the experts.

But, for now, and unless or until they get reclassified, gold saums are rivulatus as explained in the Wayne Leibel article I linked above and also as stated on this Alf Stalsberg web page (A. stalsbergi are named after Alf Stalsberg). Stalsberg is one of those who did not always believe gold saums were rivulatus, but note his comment on this:

I did not agree with this and did more work with these fishes, and the more I learned about these fish I was certain that this fish we called "Aequidens" sp. Goldsaum was not Andinoacara (Aequidens) rivulatus. But I had to change my mind later.

...which is why he currently lists them as "Andinoacara rivulatus (Goldsaum)".

This illustrates one of the problems with the whole subject, the same writers have said different things at different times-- until the work was done to officially classify gold saums (and non-stalsbergi white saums) as rivulatus. In fact, at one time current stalsbergi were considered 'true rivulatus' by some. So it gets confusing and an older article or source may well reflect an outdated understanding. And, who knows, they could be reclassified again in the future.

As for the cichlid profiles you referenced, it's not the only one they have that's inaccurate or out of date. Another example, even more in my wheelhouse, is here where they list 5 different frontosa as "sp. North". There IS no Cyphotilapia "sp. North" and there never was in any official way. Sp. North was suggested by some as a possible name for six striped C. frontosa, under the assumption six striped frontosa and seven striped frontosa in the northern part of the lake (as distinguished from C. gibberosa in the southern part of the lake) would be split into two species. This never happened, the most recent study done says they are morphs of the same species and both are C. frontosa. So "sp. North" is a defunct term that was never official in the first place. It isn't recognized and doesn't appear on official taxonomic registries, not even as an "invalid synonym". It was a suggested name that was prematurely picked up on and used by some as though it was official when it wasn't. Yet the cichlid profiles on that site still lists them with this outdated term that was never official in the first place.